DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following words/phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis:
the lower and upper parts (claim 1, lines 5-6)
the dimensions (claim 2, line 2)
the three “L”-shaped supports (claim 2, lines 2-3)
the width (claim 2, line 3)
the bars (claim 2, line 3)
the spacing (claim 2, line 4)
the center (claim 2, line 6)
the bottom (claim 2, line 6)
the upper part (claim 3, line 4)
the front part (claim 3, line 6)
the top (claim 3, line 8)
the base (claim 6, line 2; claim 6, line 3)
Claim 1 recites “a slab edge beams” in line 8. It is unclear if applicant intends to recite a singular beam (i.e. a slab edge beam) or multiple beams. Clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “a spindle” on line 8. It is not clear if this spindle is the same as the one recited in claim 1. If Applicant is referring to the same spindle, use of the phrase - - the spindle - - or - - said spindle - - would help clarify.
Claim 6 recites “an upper part” in line 6. Again, it’s not clear if this is the same “upper part” as recited in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (6,585,080) in view of Dougherty (2,709,073). With respect to claim 1, Murray discloses, in Figure 3, a guardrail assembly for temporary protection on slab floors (5) during construction work, comprising: a plurality of posts with adjustable opening claws (26)(24) which open and close through a spindle (30) with a crank (34) providing a large distance capacity between the lower (24) and upper (26) parts of the claw (24)(26) wherein the posts (9) are fixed to a slab (5) of a slab edge beam by pressure when the claws close. Murray fails to disclose a plurality of grids with quick fit rings.
Dougherty teaches a plurality of grids (32) formed by four bars (16)(17)(18)(19) configured in a rectangle. Quick fit rings (20)(21)(26)(27) are configured to attach to posts (35) and to interact with spaced supports (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the wire barriers (9) disclosed by Murray with a plurality of grids as taught by Dougherty since such a replacement would create a finer gauge barrier thereby preventing even small objects from falling off the slab.
While spaced supports (30) of Dougherty are not configured in an “L-shaped” such a configuration would have been obvious since a mere change in shape required only routine experimentation by a person of ordinary skill in the art and a L-shaped support in place of the support (30) would help more securely align the rings.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (6,585,080) in view of Dougherty (2,709,073) in further view of O’Mara (US 2022/0056715 A1).
Dougherty discloses a claw with an upper part (20) and a lower part (18) each fixed perpendicularly with respect to a base (22). Dougherty as modified by Murray fails to disclose claws with pointed teeth facing inwards.
O’Mara discloses a clamp mechanism with teeth (26)(22) facing inward.
It would have been obvious to add teeth as taught by O’Mara to the clamp of Dougherty as modified since such a modification would help prevent slipping between the clamp surfaces and the slab and result in a more secure connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: MacKarvich (11,719,009); Kearns (US 2023/0092797); Cockerell (10,240,357); Branter (6,857,504); Allengaugh (US 2003/0132427) and Laffay (FR 2953542 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B. MCPARTLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights